Finally jumped on a camera...

[Derrel]

Finished the first roll of film this week -- gonna try to get it to the lab tomorrow, and then we will see!

Hope for still-serviceable light seals in the camera....the thing is old enough that the seals might not still be light-tight. There's really nothing wrong with the three lenses you got with this kit--all three are perfectly capable lenses for a 35mm film kit. Speaking of 35mm, the 35mm focal length is one of my favorites for general walk-about use, as well as for environmental portraiture.

The thing about the 35mm lens length is that it may be used from close-in, to get a bit of deliberate foreshortening of legs and arms and limbs--without also being "weird" in terms of how it makes things at the corners of the frame appear. On FF or film, a 35mm lens also covers roughly one foot left to right for every foot distant from the subject at social photography distances, so it's easy to mentally learn the lens's natural field of view.

The tele-zoom was a well-regarded lens when it was current,and it's the fixed maximum aperture f/3.8 model, so that is nice--to be free of concern that as the lens is zoomed that the effective aperture might be changed. When it was made, that Vivitar lens was coveted by many people!

 

[JonA_CT]

Got the roll back today -- I'm really not all that pleased with the scans from the lab. They are very small and low quality (all under 1mb). I called them after I got home and they told me that they won't do any higher quality than that. I guess I'll be finding a mail-order lab after all.

Now -- lots of noise in these pictures...some weird marks too. Me? The film? The camera? The processing? I'll put a couple below, and all 23 frames in their glory in a link below. I took pictures of stupid stuff to finish up the roll, so only mild judging please

EDIT: Oh, and it just occurred to me that flare in the pictures is probably caused by the filter on the lens. Need to buy a lens cap and get the cheapie UV filters out.


0000593_0000593-R1-033-15 by jwa04, on Flickr

0000593_0000593-R1-037-17_1 by jwa04, on Flickr

0000593_0000593-R1-E009 by jwa04, on Flickr

First Roll of Film

 

[Derrel]

Looks like under-exposure on your part, and weak scanning, with plenty of DUST from a sloppy lab with sloppy procedures. "some" of the images, especially the brightly-lit outdoor shots, appear to have decent exposure. Your lab's scanning work looks poor, to say the least.

 

[MartinCrabtree]

Poor processing aside it appears the camera is functioning well. I would go out with a real light meter or another camera with a trusted meter and shoot a roll. Oh........was that some expired film?

 

[JonA_CT]

Looks like under-exposure on your part, and weak scanning, with plenty of DUST from a sloppy lab with sloppy procedures. "some" of the images, especially the brightly-lit outdoor shots, appear to have decent exposure. Your lab's scanning work looks poor, to say the least.

Thanks for the feedback!

It's actually really "enlightening" (couldn't help myself) to get the prints back. I almost never use the center-weighted metering option, and it's clear to me after looking at the pictures that I definitely need to slow the shutter speed down if inside and pointing anywhere near a window. Something to put into my notes.

I'm also wondering how old the film was...Kodak Max 400. I'm guessing it's probably been expired for awhile, with whatever effect that might have.

 

[JonA_CT]

Poor processing aside it appears the camera is functioning well. I would go out with a real light meter or another camera with a trusted meter and shoot a roll. Oh........was that some expired film?

Yeah, I'm guessing the film wasn't new, but no idea how old. My wife tossed the box so I can't check.

 

[vintagesnaps]

Well, expired film could be the problem. B&W seems to hold up better but I think color can shift or get funky. You probably should try with a fresh roll.

What is interesting is that the one of the post in the shade on the front porch is better, and the one of the meter is perfectly clear and sharp. So I can't figure out how it could have been dust or scanning when that one is clear. But it depends where you had this done, in my area drugstores have always been the worst.

To me most of these look like a good bit of graininess from exposure being off. I'm not sure why the first one of the white fence looks fine and the second one not so much. And the one of the cute baby in the pink, in that indoor existing light which probably was low light, the graininess is much more noticeable. That's the one where I see what looks like dust/lint - the small white marks.

I'm not sure what you mean about slowing down your shutter speed. You might benefit from doing some test shots, take more than one photo of something varying the exposure - meter the scene, vary the exposure by a stop, write down what you did and see what you get.

I've done that w/B&W if the meter was fluctuating because the light varies sometimes and I wanted a good quality negative to work with. I had to tell them to NOT adjust, otherwise they'd adjust and all of them would look the same on the proof sheet! And see how much they charge for a proof sheet, might be worth getting one along with the scans if you're not having prints made.

My starting point and where I reset my cameras is usually f8 and 1/125, then I go from there and use the meter readings to adjust and set the camera.

 

[Derrel]

Yeah, I wondered about the film. With the high cost of lab chemicals, and the relatively low demand for film processing, I believe there's never been a time where it's more likely that an average lab will try to "go one more day" between doing what they know they should do, and what economic necessity causes them to actually do, wether that be replacing chemicals, filtering the solutions, cleaning dust, etc,etc..

I agree--you might very well be getting some flare from that inexpensive UV filter.

All in all, this was a good test though--camera seems light-tight, apparently the frame spacing is decent, and you did okay--AND you shot some FILM and got it developed! All in all, a big win here!

 

[limr]

I agree that the film might have been expired, at least a bit. It not only results in more grain and some color shift, but there's also a loss of contrast that you'll see in some of the underexposed ones.

I might also differ and say that there miiiiiiight be a slight leak along the top. It's clearer in some shots than in others, and it's very very faint in some, but especially in the ones taken outdoors, you can see a regular sort of fuzzy band along the bottom of the frame and up the left corner. In the portrait-oriented shots, look on the left side of the frame. Maybe check the seal along the top of the back door and along the hinge.

Honestly, for your first roll, getting used to both the camera AND the film at the same time, I'd say you did pretty well!

 

[JonA_CT]

Well, expired film could be the problem. B&W seems to hold up better but I think color can shift or get funky. You probably should try with a fresh roll.

What is interesting is that the one of the post in the shade on the front porch is better, and the one of the meter is perfectly clear and sharp. So I can't figure out how it could have been dust or scanning when that one is clear. But it depends where you had this done, in my area drugstores have always been the worst.

To me most of these look like a good bit of graininess from exposure being off. I'm not sure why the first one of the white fence looks fine and the second one not so much. And the one of the cute baby in the pink, in that indoor existing light which probably was low light, the graininess is much more noticeable. That's the one where I see what looks like dust/lint - the small white marks.

Yeah, I wondered about the film. With the high cost of lab chemicals, and the relatively low demand for film processing, I believe there's never been a time where it's more likely that an average lab will try to "go one more day" between doing what they know they should do, and what economic necessity causes them to actually do, wether that be replacing chemicals, filtering the solutions, cleaning dust, etc,etc..

I agree--you might very well be getting some flare from that inexpensive UV filter.

All in all, this was a good test though--camera seems light-tight, apparently the frame spacing is decent, and you did okay--AND you shot some FILM and got it developed! All in all, a big win here!

I really had high hopes for this lab -- I'd much rather support a local business than mailing it somewhere else. When the last big camera shop/photo lab closed here maybe ten years ago, a few of the employees of that shop opened the place that I went to. Really there should have been a few signs that should have let me know not to expect much -- it's in Olde Mystic Village which is a glorified touristy strip mall set up to look old, the shop is filled with half Mystic, CT t-shirts and half custom framing options, and the guy that I spoke with both times doesn't seem to know anything other than the fact that they do indeed develop film there. I also asked him about the scanning option when I dropped it off, and he seemed to think it was a weird request.

I've learned my lesson. I'll find a mail-in lab that's hopefully not across the country.

I agree that the film might have been expired, at least a bit. It not only results in more grain and some color shift, but there's also a loss of contrast that you'll see in some of the underexposed ones.

I might also differ and say that there miiiiiiight be a slight leak along the top. It's clearer in some shots than in others, and it's very very faint in some, but especially in the ones taken outdoors, you can see a regular sort of fuzzy band along the bottom of the frame and up the left corner. In the portrait-oriented shots, look on the left side of the frame. Maybe check the seal along the top of the back door and along the hinge.

Honestly, for your first roll, getting used to both the camera AND the film at the same time, I'd say you did pretty well!

So many noob mistakes on this roll -- anything that is out of focus or has motion blur is because my fat finger went a little too far on the shutter when trying to meter. I think that's the hardest part. The meter isn't super bright, and it works in a way that I'm not used to. I may end up shooting the next roll Aperture priority, although I'd rather get the exposure right myself. This is one of those places my DSLR use has caused bad habits -- I shoot in manual mode 90% of the time, and about 90% of that time, I have the ISO capped and set to AUTO. I think if nothing else, using a film camera will make me think about exposure much more.

I totally see the banding you are talking about, and the light seals are definitely tacky and kind of gross. I'm not afraid to replace them myself, and it looks like there is quite a bit of information on the web for how to do it. My plan is to order a kit and replace them before I shoot another roll, although I'm pretty impatient so who knows

Again, I really appreciate all of the feedback. I knew that you all would have the answers for me when I looked at those scans last night.

 

[MartinCrabtree]

Jon Goodman sells seal kits with excellent instructions. E-Mail him @ [email protected]

 

[cgw]

Jon Goodman sells seal kits with excellent instructions. E-Mail him @ [email protected]

DIY with thin adhesive-backed foam for about a buck a sheet. Seal kits are over-priced and really not necessary since the hinge seal is the key to nearly all leaks and also the easiest to replace. Seals along the length of the door are light-tight with or without seals. Mirror bumper is optional. Instructions online.It's not neurosurgery. Have done several and all patients survived.

 

[JonA_CT]

Jon Goodman sells seal kits with excellent instructions. E-Mail him @ [email protected]

DIY with thin adhesive-backed foam for about a buck a sheet. Seal kits are over-priced and really not necessary since the hinge seal is the key to nearly all leaks and also the easiest to replace. Seals along the length of the door are light-tight with or without seals. Mirror bumper is optional. Instructions online.It's not neurosurgery. Have done several and all patients survived.

Again, I'm quite an inpatient chap, so I went and bought some sticky foam and gave it a go. I used a toothpick (well, several) to get the old light seals off, and then some rubbing alcohol and some q-tips to get the sticky residue off and to clean the surface for the new foam.

Before:
Untitled by jwa04, on Flickr

After:

Untitled by jwa04, on Flickr

Everything seems to seal shut quite nicely, although it's a bit more snug then it was before. I threw a roll of Ilford HP-5 in it. I'm excited to get back out with it.

 

[MartinCrabtree]

Sounds like it's time for some more photon hunting.

 

[Gary A.]

Jon, you should give serious consideration to developing developing at home. B&W is quite easy and cost effective. Probably less than $100 to get started with new hardware and significantly less on Craigslist (used).